Time again for that evil, pagan ritual we all must undergo: Tax-time once again looms upon us, like some kind of giant, bloodsucking organism that's really really nasty and stuff. Everyone falls victim to the evil tax monster at some point in their lives. For example, my dad always says, at tax time, After doing my taxes, I can understand why I'm a Republican." While I'm not attempting to be overtly partisan or pro-Republican here, but it should be noted that Republicans tend to favor tax cuts, while Democrats will attempt to tax everything that moves, and even many things that don't -- including dead people. Oh, you think I'm kidding, pal?! Well, those that don't believe me can check out IRS Publication 559, "Survivors, Executors, and Administrators," which details the responsibilities that estate managers have for filing tax returns for the deceased. That's right: you still have to pay taxes after you're dead. They say you can't take it with you, and at the IRS, it's more than just a saying, it's a way of life, so to speak. God alone knows what the IRS would do to you if , being dead and all, you failed to pay taxes. The IRS evens makes a joke about the whole thing on their World Wide Web Page. "Death and Taxes: How true the maxim!" they say happily. Ha ha ha ha ha haaa!! WOOO!!! Those wacky IRS agents! Who says they don't have a sense of humor?!? In an effort to prove that they're not completely heartless, the IRS folks hung up their bull-whips and chained up their attack dogs long enough to decide that those who died in a combat zone (assuming they were military personnel) or as a result of a terrorist attack would not be liable for post-mortem taxes. "If you have to go, it might as well be in a terrorist bombing," as far as the IRS is concerned. Of course, you still have to send in a Form 1040-BOOM detailing the circumstances.
Something I've noticed is that everyone cheerfully pays their taxes, without any thought as to why they do so, or how the money is spent. Of course, this is due, in large part, to the fact that those who decide not to pay their taxes will be hauled off by large, scary-looking, heavily-armed federal agents with big attack dogs to the nearest federal penitentiary, never to be heard from again. Still, regardless of ever-growing (but as yet fruitless) attacks on our freedom of speech, including Senator ________________'s attempts to [EXACT NATURE OF THE SENATOR'S ATTEMPTS HAVE BEEN CENSORED] until it was discovered [DISCOVERY HAS BEEN CENSORED] which doesn't [LOTS OF WORDS CENSORED] and dwarf goats [SEVERAL MORE WORDS CENSORED], as far as I know, so I can still discuss how taxes are spent, and propose new methods of tax collection. So take your seats, and we'll get under way. Next stop on the Mystery Tour: the IRS.
In order to understand the IRS (and the question of why it exists) more clearly, it is important to understand what our tax dollars are used for. Quite simply put, it is used to help operate the government. Now I don't wish to sound too vindictive, but if I did, all of a sudden, decide that vindictiveness would be the way to go, I might point out that the money would be more efficiently spent by loading it into a rocket and sending it hurtling headlong into the sun. However, the government has chosen to spend it in the following ways:
- PRESIDENTIAL HAIRCUTS: Early on in Bill "I Don't Want My Name on These Here Whitewater Documents, Mr. McDougal" Clinton's presidential administration, our oh-so-slick chief executive felt the need to keep Air Force One, funded by a ludicrous amount of our tax dollars, on the tarmac for two hours in order that he complete the vital federal task of receiving a $200 haircut from a famous Los Angeles hair stylist.
- THE NASA SPACE TOILET: Several years ago, I received word of a NASA project that spent a total of over $50 million to redesign the toilet system on the space shuttles. This toilet included potentially dangerous-looking suction devices that were to be attached to sensitive areas of the body in order to collect waste from the astronauts. I recall thinking that for $50 million, this thing had better clean itself and wipe the astronauts' asses automatically. Encouraged by their success, the government has decided to use more of our tax dollars to create the $3 million High Speed Toothbrush and the $14 million Deep Sea Enema.
- THE POST OFFICE: The government, in it's wisdom, has decided to be lax in its hiring qualification criteria, requiring only that applicants pass a test requiring, at minimum, the same level of mental performance that is exhibited by mildly intelligent woodchucks (and people still don't pass). As a result, they tend to hire a statistically large amount of mentally imbalanced wackos who become disgruntled under the stress of standing around watching machines sort mail for $15 per hour (the postal workers earn this, not the machines, stupid. The machines aren't union, so the government pays them less) and turn their place of employment into a re-enactment of the NRA Open House.
- AN OFFICIAL STUDY OF METHANE EMISSIONS OF BOVINE ANIMALS: In other words, the government has spent millions in the pursuit of studying cow farts. This is theoretically designed to study the impact that cattle-induced methane has on "global warming." It is a testament to government logic that somebody not only was funded for this project, but took the time to come up with, prepare, and present the idea to the government, hoping for a research grant. I think perhaps it would be more interesting to study the composition of the emissions of beer-drinking, nacho-consuming Super Bowl revelers myself. Perhaps I will prepare a grant for this study (God I'm glad I'm getting a Biology degree).
The examples listed above aren't even the most bizarre ways that the government spends our money. Needles to say, many proposals have been made regarding how to lower our taxes and spend what is collected more efficiently. Former presidential candidate and rival to Ross Perot for the "Billionaire Wacko of the Decade Award" Steve Forbes proposed a flat tax concept, wherein all Americans would, in general, pay a set percentage of their pay to the IRS, specifically 17 percent in Forbes' proposal. Personally, I like syndicated humor columnist Dave Barry's variation on the flat tax, wherein you pay a flat rate of nothing, and government revenue is raised by enacting a special tax of 10,000 dollars for everyone who gets one of those "Rachel" haircuts that Jennifer Aniston wears on "Friends." However, I feel that there's no reason to stop there; we could easily institute various other taxes to raise revenue, while allowing the average citizen a lower tax bill.
- FLANNEL TAX: In this case, anybody who is not a lumberjack who nevertheless wears plaid flannel shirts on a regular basis would have to pay $10,000 for each incidence. there would be a $5,000 surtax for wearing other items of clothing made of flannel, such as boxer shorts. These taxes would be cumulative. The revenues from a single college fraternity would be staggering, and it's possible that a single night's crowd at Rick's could balance the national deficit.
- AN "O/A" TAX: Anyone using the abbreviation "O/A" in order to be politically correct and include both gender-specific terms without taking the time to write both of them out (example: "Latino/a" instead of "Latino/Latina") would be taxed $10,000 per instance. In extreme circumstances, such as a newspaper reporting that "Alianza/o, a Latino/a Student's Organization, gathered at O'/A' Sullivan's to meet with presidential candidate Ross Perot/at to discuss issues concerning..." an additional tax and possible legal action would be considered.
In order to completely reform the tax system, though, it is necessary to go right to the root of the problem: government spending. The problem with government spending is that there is just too damned much of it. Senators and congressmen can add whatever damn dumb riders to any bill they want, which invariably causes there to be a new source of spending. As I outlined in a previous issue of the Review in which I announced my plans to reform Washington should I become president, I introduced a revolutionary plan to reform the way our government is run. My plan is simple: replace all of the departments in the cabinet with a single department: the Department of Bob. The Department of Bob would be run by a large, scary-looking dog such as a Rottweiler or German shepherd. All laws passed by Congress would have to be approved by the Department of Bob before the president would sign them into law. If the Department of Bob received a bill that it found to be acceptable, it would bark cheerfully and wag its tail. However, if the Department of Bob were to be presented with a bill it found to be unacceptable, such as a wasteful new government spending program, it would growl menacingly at it, and perhaps even lunge at the senator or congressman that sponsored the bill, in order that the exact position of the Executive Branch would be correctly and succinctly conveyed ("OKAY!!! I WON'T ATTACH THE PORK SUBSIDY RIDER!! GET HIM OFF ME!!!")
Clearly I am on the right track here. My tax reform ideas would not only lower taxes, but eliminate a lot of wasteful spending by our wonderful congresspeople. I welcome any comments you may have, but I warn you: you'll have to run them by the Department of Bob first.